Thread regarding ExxonMobil Corp. layoffs

Unreadable without proper paragraph breaks

@OP, equality and equity are two different things, especially when it comes to representation at any level. No HR professional with access to availability data and full awareness of what DEI focus tried to achieve would say the goal is equal representation of every racial demographic at every level. Equity is about proportionate representation at each level, taking into account that some groups have lower availability of qualified candidates entering the company and will this have lower overall representation. But looking at every employee level in the company's most recent Investing in People portion (pg. 15) of the Sustainability Report from entry level to corp leaders, anyone can clearly see that the only demographics that increase in representation from entry level to corp leaders are white men and women, and these groups occupy 89.5% of all US corp leader roles (0 women of color), 78% of all VP-SVP roles, 78.8% of all Sr. Manager roles, 74.6% of all Manager roles, and 70.5% of all entry level roles. Why is this if the system is truly meritocratic and everyone has an equally fair opportunity to demonstrate capability and gain access to promotions? Are white employees smarter or better suited to leadership in said meritocracy, or can we acknowledge the role of similarity bias and systemic advantages that have historically maintained these discrepancies? How can anyone say there is a forced focus on equal outcomes for "US minorities" if these are the actual numbers? The statement is illogical and just plain false with a quick look at the numbers.

A lot of people (not all) who subscribe to this “minorities getting promoted over white male” narrative look at all minorities as relatively lower performers. They have an immediate assumption that they past over better people, regardless of if they were actually more qualified for the position. That alone is evidence that minorities and women have biases against them. These people are in the workroom, making decisions and influencing others. Judge individuals by their competence and not appearance. Sure there may be initiatives but if there are, they are mildly making up for 100 years of the bias mentioned above.

When almost all of the supervisor roles in my organization are filled with female minorities I start to think maybe, just maybe the company has gone woke. Based on a pure percentage of available candidates I wouldn't expect this distribution.

• To the person talking about 10 years with the company, but using “woke,” you don’t have 10 years with EM. No one with 10+ years uses “woke.”

• I’ve been in conversations about employee moves when phrases like “oh, she just got married, we can’t put her in a supervisor position because she’ll probably get pregnant and go on leave soon” are used. If that’s not discrimination against females, then I don’t know what is. And in that same conversation a male was chosen for the role because his wife just had a baby, so he’s very serious about work and providing for his family now. WTAF?

• I’ve seen employees of all race, gender, age, se-ual orientation, etc. promoted to positions they were not qualified for. Before anyone sits here and says diversity candidates are being moved to unfair positions, take a step back and look at those in leadership positions who are white males who continue to leave trails of debris everywhere they go. DW and BK are prime examples.

• If you’re someone who questions why a mother has to leave early to pick up her sick child from school, but then turns and praises a father for leaving early for a football game (because he never misses his son’s games) - check your bias.

I think a lot more of this conversation is around bias. Go complete the DECIDE and INCLUDE trainings and really try to understand your unconscious bias.

Equity for India. That's the focus of company. That's all.

It's really simple - companies should be meritocracies. For ethical reasons as well as stockholder value.

What we are doing now is not. Its pure reverse discrimination. Perhaps decades ago it was the other way around (Though I've been here long enough to doubt that).

For at least the last 20 years - diversity employees were mentored and given every development opportunity imaginable. Just look at the numbers - almost all the entry level management positions and prime development assignments are diversity filled. How does that happen when the majority of college campus grads (in engineering and science) are white guys? Either the average white guy is far d-mber than the average diversity employee or there is a bias towards reverse discrimination.

That needs to stop.

Minority here, had over 10 years before I recently left. Was always “middle third” in the old system, suddenly Outstanding when it flipped. Two CL promotions back to back. Was still 1-2 CL behind my white friends that did not outperform me but got promoted quickly and early on. Left for a 50% raise.

Not promoting based on biases is wrong too. Plenty of diversity candidates who met the meritocracy criteria had been overlooked in the past.

Had the same work been produced by white, male engineers with the standard A&M communication style, it would have been recognized as outstanding. Instead it was produced by someone who looked a little different, had a different communication style, gave more credit to the team, etc. etc. etc. And suddenly ‘outstanding’ is perceived as ‘solid, but lacking that little special umph.’ And that is all it takes to pass someone over for a promotion. It is rarely conscious.

Pizzaz/style is subjective; way more subjective than work quality……but those upper roles are reserved for people perceived to have pizzaz. (Pizzaz is too exciting a word for ExxonMobil…..let’s say ‘fits the ExxonMobil mold.’)

And honestly, I can sympathize that many white men feel it has swung too far in the other direction. But anyone over 10 years in the company has likely already benefited from the old system. They had the upper-leg for many years and early in their career….where it matters most. If they now feel like it is a struggle, they should recognize they started on the ‘advantaged’ side of this.

Imagine starting your career on the ‘disadvantaged’ side of this. You hit it out of the ball-park year-after-year, but are constantly told you are the bench-warmer. ….but they will bring you out for ‘diversity’ events and expect you to talk nice about the company before putting you away again. That sounds harsh, but I suspect that was a reality for many strong diversity employees in our company’s past 10 years (and more.)

I am happy to see the situation trying to be corrected. And while I recognize management isn’t always making 100% correct decisions with regard to whom is promoted, it looks and feels better than it was.

Promoting based on ethnicity or s-x is wrong. Its that simple. It was wrong 50 years ago when white men had the upper hand. And its wrong now when its minorities and women get special treatment. XOM had been a meritocracy for decades without any systemic bias. And now in the last 10 years decided to go woke. If you are an older white guy forget it you will have no future. Just about every development position is being staffed by diversity employees with far less experience and demonstrated ability than the competition.

@noy+1lArGCPY. Said perfectly.

Ever wonder why some parts of ExxonMobil do better in diversity than other parts? Well, there was a diversity initiative by one particular company back sometime in the late 90s or early 2000s. This company admitted, at the time, that they might have some biases and tried to correct them.

They tried to sell the initiative to the other ExxonMobil arms, who said ‘no thank you.’

Fast forward 20 years: The company that started managing diversity early is now diverse. It is not forced. There is no disparity in skill level. It seems like the healthiest place to work in the ExxonMobil circuit.

The rest of the organization was a diversity nightmare 5-8 years ago. Only after employees started publicly pointing this out in forums and insisting on change, did the rest of the organization start to change. BUT they had to do 20 years of work in 5 years. Shame on the company, for this one.

I will attest that we lost some of the best and brightest diversity candidates in those last 20 years. They saw the writing on the wall, and took their talent elsewhere. We still have very talented diversity candidates, but not as many as we should have.

Regardless, change has to happen sometime. It should have happened 20 years ago. Instead we get the fast-track 5 years “we screwed up, but won’t admit we screwed up” plan. We get that every single day on multiple initiatives and should be used to it. In this case, it is actually the right thing to do and will lead to a holistically more diverse organization that isn’t ‘forced’….it just takes some time.

I have worked for the company for over 15 years and I just don’t see any difference in the skill level between white people and any other group. If anything, I’ve wondered why the worst supervisors and managers I’ve ever had seem to stay untouchable. They both happen to be white.

I had one who turned a blind eye to theft. He expected his admin to do inappropriate things like lie to his wife about his girlfriend and his whereabouts when she called. He expected her to sell his children’s fundraising items. That was in addition to being a horribly ineffective manager.

Another manager couldn’t have been more incompetent if he had had his brain removed. Everyone who knows him knows he is painfully & dangerously bad at his job, yet he has managed to be moved around and promoted (despite the fact no one wants him in their group).

@OP If we suddenly fired everyone at EM who wasn’t hired/promoted based on merit there would be nobody left except for the janitors and security.

All this talk of merit is just dog-whistling. The wiry, attractive white guy fresh from A&M with the degree in industrial distribution (C-average) isn’t qualified to lead either, but nobody seems to complain when he gets promoted.

You might get some buy-in if you start calling that out too, but that isn’t the game you’re playing, is it?

Being promoted to an executive is not primarily based on meritocracy. The decision factors are more related to what the leadership team thinks you MAY be able to do in the future (i.e.. potential) and not as much about your current skills, experience or what you have already delivered. That isn’t meritocracy. Diversity is an important factor too.

Overall this is the Company’s choice but they shouldn’t say this particular part of the system is meritocracy and shouldn’t complain about staffing levels as this approach leads to needing more support under an (unqualified) executive.

I really don’t care what race you are as long as you are a good person. My sls is a horrible person and I know she’s still in management for some other reason than being a good manager or a good person. I have worked for many minorities that were great people. This one however is the worst I’ve ever had the misfortune to work for. She’s been to HR multiple times yet she still is in a management position. The system is broken.

@qok Apples to oranges.

There’s also a world full of examples of straight white men burning institutions to the ground for no apparent reason. DW comes to mind.

It’s almost as if people are fine with having the wheels fall off the bus as long they look like the driver.

Ever wonder why black people from the Caribbean, South Africa, or European countries don't seem to have the same issues.

That is a class thing not a race thing. Plenty of black people use their connections to get ahead just like not every white person has family and connections that can even help them.

White people use their family and school connections to give each other promotions and never bat an eye. It’s a lose-lose situation if you’re not white. People will hate you and judge even if you work hard.

If more diverse leadership was actually better HISD would be the best school district in America it is certainly the most well funded. The reason equity doesn't work is because it is simple math. The pyramid is smaller so the top is weaker and less competitive. If you aren't raised in a family with a crazy work ethic and an social EQ you won't be an executive.

Hilarious!

@OP

You guys really need to stop the constant pi----g & moaning about this. It isn’t constructive. It also has no basis in objective reality.

I personally don’t give AF what anyone looks like, what/who they date, how they vote, etc. Just leave me alone to do my job and we’ll get along fine.

People against equity is rac!st simple fact. Y’all use your white privdege to get ahead of everyone else. It’s our time now. Y’all don’t give use a chance cause you worried we will be best and y’all can’t except the fact. Give the rest a chance and help us be successful and we prove we are better. What y’all fraid of?